I haven't seen much discussion of something very noteworthy that Bill Reel dropped last week on his Facebook feed - scans of John Gee's final words as editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities (JSSEA). What Gee wrote in his remarks is not about apologetics directly, but the connection to his apologetic studies is obvious; in fact, I think it is apparent in Gee's final words that apologetics are his first priority. All that being said, I should probably confess that, although the repercussions for Gee's style of apologetics are obvious in these scans, the actual reason I enjoy this stuff is less about detached academic curiosity, and probably something closer to the reasons my wife watches The Bachelor.
The JSSEA is, as far as I can tell, a legitimate academic journal publishing in the field of Egyptology, based in Toronto. According to Gee's CV, he edited three volumes of this journal from 2008-2010. The final volume he edited (vol. 37) begins with some editorial remarks by Gee, an odd diatribe railing against the concept of peer review, titled "The Problem With Peer Review." Scan can be found here, but I am including a transcription:

The Problem with Peer Review
Peer review is supposed to be an unalloyed good, but anyone who thinks so cannot have spent much time in the process.
In theory peer review works as follows: A submission is received and the editor sends the submission without the name attached to one or more reviewers, each of whom is an expert in that subject. The reviewers independently recommend whether to accept the submission or suggest revisions. The reviewers do not know who wrote the paper and the author does not know who the reviewers are. If the paper does not pass muster, the editor is relieved of the responsibility of rejecting a friend's paper.
In practice, however, there are numerous problems with peer review.
Since Egyptology must cover four thousand years of human history and every facet of a complex civilization, Egyptologists must specialize of necessity. While the pool of Egyptologists is not very large, the number of peers in some specialized areas can in some cases be numbered on the fingers of one hand. In such small specialties, any reviewer who cannot figure out who the author is within a couple of minutes probably does not know enough to review the piece, and the same is true of an author who cannot discover who the reviewer is. If, as is true for some specialties, none of the specialists agree, it will simply not be possible to publish anything in a peer reviewed journal.
Peer review can be manipulated for malicious purposes. Examples from other disciplines have gained some notoriety. Under such circumstances, peer review can actually impede progress in a discipline as it prevents publication of new ideas, or correction of mistakes.
Because peer review is mostly anonymous and unremunerated work, there is no incentive for a peer reviewer to invest time or effort in it. As a result, some peer reviews are perfunctory without much thought or effort. I am aware of one papyrus published in an ostensibly peer-reviewed journal where the author cannot possibly have even read the papyrus he was publishing, but none of the reviewers even noticed showing that they cannot have read it either. This publication has been cited numerous times showing that none of the scholars citing the publication had bothered to read the papyrus either. This is clearly a failure of the review system.
As part of the peer review process, reviewers sometimes make suggestions to improve the article. These suggestions should improve the article. Sometimes, however, they do not improve the article. At other times they would have improved the article but the author has chosen to reject them.
Finally, one cannot edit a journal without stepping on various toes. I regret that I had to turn down many papers, including some written by friends. No personal slight was intended even if some was taken.
It is understandable why a freshly graduated student might be justifiably proud of themselves. It must be so wearisome to work with mere mortals. Mere mortals might not be overawed with a freshly graduated student's certifiable brilliance (just look at the diploma) and might actually make editorial suggestions or have the temerity to question the logic of the argument. I apologize to those who were offended at the prospect of working with mere mortals.
I am sorry for the inordinate delay in this issue. As one literary character expressed it, "I am afraid you have been long desiring my absence, nor have I any thing to plead in excuse of my stay."¹ When an editor can no longer bring the Journal in on time, it is time to leave. I wish Katja Goebs the best as she takes over the helm of the JSSEA...

Wow, that's... really something. While I'm sure that many of the imperfections of peer review he cites are real, it is nevertheless surprising to me that he would finish his editorship in an academic journal with a rant that seems to imply the academic community would be better off without it, not to mention a weirdly sarcastic tangent apparently directed at some student whose article he must have rejected. I am also curious about this alleged incident where someone published in "an ostensibly peer-reviewed journal where the author cannot possibly have even read the papyrus he was publishing," which he claims is a failure of the peer review system. RfM speculated this is a reference to Robert Ritner's 2000 article published in Dialogue titled, "The 'Breathing Permit of Hor' Thirty-four Years Later." The article is an update to Klaus Baer's original translation of the named papyrus. As the article notes in the introduction, Baer's initial work was based on photographs, and Ritner's own update is based on newer color photographs, since the church hadn't published an official volume yet, and since the church did not grant much outside access to the actual papyrus. Although the essay itself is tangential to any apologetics on the Book of Abraham, there is some criticism of Gee's arguments therein, mostly in the footnotes. After reading the rest of Gee's remarks in his journal, I am inclined to agree with RfM that this is probably what Gee is referring to.
So let's move on to Gee's next contribution to his final edited edition of this journal, a book review of The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt's Third Intermediate Period by Robert Ritner. As many of us are aware, Ritner was once Gee's professor's, and there is a history between the two, much of it centered around Gee's apologetics on the Book of Abraham. The book being reviewed, however, apparently has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham. The scan of the review can be found here, but I will transcribe the text as well:

Robert K. Ritner, Jr., The Libyan Anarchy: Inscriptions from Egypt's Third Intermediate Period, [Writings of the Ancient World 21) (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). ISBN-13: 978-1-58983-174-2. xx + 622 pp. $59.95.
For twenty years, the Society of Biblical Literature's series, Writings of the Ancient World has made available affordable and accurate translations of ancient texts that prove invaluable to students and professionals, especially ancient historians and biblical scholars who might not be proficient in the various languages. This book continues that series with translations of a number of texts from the Libyan period - the Egyptian time period contemporary with the bulk of the biblical narrative. Professor Ritner is generally a capable scholar, but has been known to badly misread the texts that he was proportedly (sic) publishing,²⁴ so his translations and particularly his transliterations need to be checked against the original glyphs. The work under consideration shows that still to be the case.
Professor Ritner translates nearly three hundred texts in his anthology but numbers them rather oddly so that it seems as though there are only about two hundred. Most Of this material is conveniently available in the more comprehensive work of Karl Jansen-Winkeln²⁵ and Olivier Perdu²⁶ neither of which does Ritner mention. Anyone who uses Ritner's work will want to have Jansen-Winkeln at his elbow. For example, Ritner's translation of the settlement text of Henuttawy (C) from the Tenth Pylon of Karnak (pp. 138-43) is missing significant portions of the text, which may be found in Jansen-Winkeln.²⁷
The translations are adequate. Hyper-Polotskian translations often leave the impression that the text has been translated but not into English. The translator seems to have avoided the worst excesses of the Polotskians but the translations are still often awkward and mechanical. "This is one of Ritner's few positive contributions to the field, one not written with the primary intent of attacking someone, and he seems thoroughly bored. It is disappointing that Ritner's considerable verbal gifts vanish when he is not writing vitriol.
Professor Ritner seems proud that his was the first Egyptological volume in the series Writings of the Ancient World to provide transliterations of the texts (p. 9). This would have been a real achievement if the transliterations were on the facing pages of the translations like those of the Other volumes of the series. Alas, such was not the case. Five pages of straight transliteration (pp. 88-92,349-53) followed by six or seven pages of translation (pp. 92-98, 353-58) becomes ludicrous besides useless. pinnacle is ten pages of straight transliteration (pp. 468-77). Think of the paper and ink wasted on pages that will scarcely be read! Without them the volume would have been much shorter, and probably significantly less expensive. Inclusion of the transliterations might have been helpful if the transliterations were accurate. Ritner's transliterations are generally an idealized view of the text as though they were written in the correct Middle Egyptian of a thousand years previously. But they were not, so the text in the transliteration often does not reflect what is written the hieroglyphs, and Ritner's transliterations suppress or distort numerous features of the contemporary language. Throughout the book brackets are so commonly misplaced that it is a wonder that they were included at all.
The poor formatting can at least be explained by noting that Professor Ritner simply dumped material on Bob Buller who tried to pull together "a coherent manuscript" out of the mess that Ritner gave him (p. 10). Buller has spent an enormous amount of work on this volume and the fact that it is as good as it is says much to Buller's credit. Buller should be exonerated for the continuous type-setting problems such as not placing the transliterations and translations on facing pages, or the ubiquitous breaks of lines in the middle of the words. Professor Ritner should have caught some of those. It was simply beyond Buller's skill to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that he had been given.
The book appears in print a decade out of date. Only four works in the bibliography date after 1999. At one point, Ritner says that a book that came out five years before his did was too late to be considered (p. 193). Ritner only lists it as "Wilson 2005" but does not include it in the bibliography and so leaves follow-up impossible. Several times Ritner says that the "dimensions [are] not given" (pp. 66-67) even though they are in a book that he lists in his bibliography (p. 601) and published by the Oriental Institute where he works, but apparently could not bother to use as a basis for the inscriptions that he published from it.
The numerous historical errors will lead those who are not specialists on Third Intermediate period studies astray. Here are a sampling:
- Ritner provides a helpful genealogy of Ankhefenkhonsu (p. 16) showing the High Priest Menkhepere (conventionally 1035-986 B.c.) ten generations apart from Sheshonq 1 (924-889 B.C.). This would mean that if Ritner has reconstructed the genealogy correctly, then for ten generations, the men in this genealogy were consistently having children at the average age of eleven. Either Ritner's reconstruction is incorrect or the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period needs to be expanded on the order of a century.
-Ritner often assigns rulers incorrectly. This is attributable to a number of reasons. Sometimes it simply reflects the uncertain nature of work on the Third Intermediate Period. Sometimes it reflects the inability or unwillingness to stay current in an active field. Sometimes it reflects carelessness. A few examples from the first seventy pages will suffice:
- An inscription of Sheshonq Vla (Janssen-Winkeln's V II) is attributed to Sheshonq I (p. 34).
- An unattributable inscription is attributed to Osorkon II (p. 36).
- An inscription of Petubastis I is attributed to Sheshonq Ill (p. 37).
- An inscription of Takeloth Ill is attributed to Osorkon Ill (p. 39).
- An inscription of Osorkon II is attributed to Osorkon Ill (p. 40).
- Inscriptions from different rulers are combined (p. 51).
- An inscription of Sheshonq IV is attributed to Osorkon Ill (p. 57).
- An inscription likely of Osorkon II is unattributed (p. 59).
- A unattributable inscription of early Dynasty 22 is attributed to Osorkon I (p. 61).
For this reason, Ritner's book needs to be used very carefully and everything should be double-checked.
While the Twenty-First through Twenty-Fourth Dynasties can properly be called the Libyan period, and there is certainly Libyan influence, Ritner has a tendency to see influence when it is not actually there. Two examples will suffice. Ritner labels one individual a "Libyan Dynast" and reads his name 'Pk-wꜣ-iw- šꜣ(?)" (p. 79). He has misread the name, which is Pkwꜣrꜣwr, an odd spelling for the well-attested Egyptian name Pꜣ-krr. In one of the priestly annals, his insertion of the title "chief of the Man is simply his own invention surreptitiously inserted into a lacuna (p. 53).
The preceding has been a mere sample of the hundred of errors that plague the volume. There seems little point wasting paper by listing all of them.
In the end, this book constantly reminds the reader of Breasted's Ancient Records, a ground-breaking translation effort making many texts available for the first time in English, which unfortunately is out-of-date and in desperate need of revision. Breasted's work took at least half a century to achieve that feat, but Ritner's needed merely to roll off the press. While Egyptologists may find Professor Ritner's numerous mistakes amusing, no historian or biblical scholar should rely on his work. In that sense the volume defeats its purpose.
John Gee

Wow! It's hard to know where to begin with a book review that's dripping with so much personal invective. The actual validity of his criticisms is well outside of my expertise, but I am reminded of when Gee published a similarly scathing review of Volume 4 of the Joseph Smith Papers Project. It looks like a pattern that when Gee perceives an enemy to his apologetic endeavors, he publishes scathing "proxy reviews" that don't address his underlying apologetic concerns, but which are clearly motivated by them. In the case of the JSPP volume 4, both Mormon and non-Mormon academics outside his circle of apologetic allies agreed that his criticisms were spurious. In searching for opinions from Ritner's peers on his book, I can only find one review from the Journal of the American Oriental Society, which is very positive, labelling it "expertly produced and efficiently organized," "extremely important for anyone researching the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period," and his translations "as fresh as they are up-to-date." Google scholar lists 96 citations of this work.
But of special note is footnote 24, which is supposed to cite Gee's allegation that Robert Ritner "has been known to badly misread the texts that he was proportedly (sic) publishing." Some of you may have been wondering what egregious academic error he cites here that establishes such a poor reputation for poor Robert Ritner. Surely, if Gee is publishing such a hostile assessment of Ritner's abilities in an academic journal, he must be citing something substantial and widely accepted within the Egyptological community right?
That's where this gets good. Following footnote 24, it turns out his citation is an article from freaking FARMS! In an Egyptological journal! I kid you not. He cites "Kerry Muhlestein, "The Book of Breathings in Its Place," FARMS Review 17/2 (2005):482-86."
But we aren't done, because the cherry on top are the editorial remarks by Gee's successor, Katja Goebs, in the subsequent volume. I will transcribe her relevant remarks here:

2) Peer Review
It is the conviction of the current editor and board that peer review is an indispensable, even if not infallible, factor in ensuring high academic standards. It has also become — at least in the North American context — a sine qua non for young scholars seeking to bolster their CVs when applying for grants and jobs. What is more, the referees' comments often furnish helpful additional materials and theoretical insights for author and editor. JSSEA will remain peer reviewed.
...
4) Book Reviews
Recently, there has been some discussion about the appropriate level of criticism that might be conveyed in a review. Our Book Reviews Committee is committed to ensuring that a scholarly discussion of new academic works takes place that neither descends into insubstantial generalities, nor into angry personal vendettas. An apparent recent exception to this rule represents an oversight resulting from time-pressures shortly before publication of the issue in question.

Lol.
I think this episode is valuable as a demonstration of why one should not mix apologetics with scholarship. Even though none of the content here is ostensibly about the Book of Abraham, it's all about the Book of Abraham, and that has seemingly compromised Gee's academic career. It's fine to defend one's faith on intellectual as well as faith-centered grounds, but the Interpreter-style apologetics frequently forgets that they cannot claim the authority of academic inquiry without adhering to its core precepts.

He showed up 30 days ago. There are so many posts. This is a TINY subset of his responses, I'm not going to comment on them all. This person literally posts all day every day and night. I am so sorry you guys have been subjected to somebody so completely removed from how to properly socially interact with people. The level of narcissism is something I have never seen on reddit before. I will never cheat on you guys with /wallstreetbets again! I'm so sorry you had to deal with this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm just unusually good at Internet-based digging (I've been doing it for 25 years). I'm the one friends come to when they're dating someone new, etc." - yeah, we nipped that in the bud earlier. have several seats.
"I figured people here would value the amount of unique info I dig up, but I guess if I accidentally discover any info that would force them to adjust the model of Hilaria that's already solidified inside their brains, they'd prefer to not hear anything new at all." - value you lmao
"Here's one where I dug up some first-person comments from people who knew her as Hillary, that had never been reported before." - nope, we had all that on DCUM.
"Yes, Alec donating $1M does reduce his wealth by less than $1M. But it reduces his wealth by more than not donating anything would. If wealth-maximization was his only goal, he'd donate $0." -- thank god we have you to explain the complicated math that is tax brackets and writeoffs.
"Alec donates millions to non-profits (via the foundation) every year, since long before Hilaria (it was just "the ABF" until recently). I've looked at their IRS filings, and it seems to be a legitimate, well-operated foundation, not doing anything shady for tax purposes." - We know how much he donates. It's online. We didn't need the IRS filings, clearly.
"I gave *you* the link to the clearinghouse, I have the link to the clearinghouse, and neither of us (nor anyone else on this site) checked it! So we both have first-hand experience showing that "giving someone the link to something" doesn't mean a damn thing. Anyone can send an email about anything to the NYT requesting a correction, the fact that they did so is not indicative of anything."
"I somewhat believe Flat_Slide_5680 did actually speak to someone at the registrar's office, but given the sloppiness with details and repeated mistakes in their posts, I agree with you that the likely scenario is that they just never gave the correct name to the registrar to look up, and so "we couldn't find a person who doesn't exist" isn't positive proof of anything." - WHAT THE FUCK?! You do NOT get to come in my subreddit and act like you are the editor of the damn Wall Street Journal berating an intern.
"In your original post, you say she was under "Hilaria Lynn Thomas". Here you say it was "Hilaria Haywood-Thomas". And the latter is definitely not, nor has it ever been, her last name! Not improving my confidence in your credibility here." - See above.
"Forgive me if I still have more trust in the New York Times over an anonymous Reddit user, but we're going to need better receipts from you than that." -We? Who is we?? Are we turning something in? When is it due?
"Since you don't believe me, let's see what the Linguistic Society has to say on the matter:" -my god you are insufferable
"You should have been following all my comments more closely. ;-)". - No shit, you would have been banned a month ago.
"Making a charitable donation reduces the amount of your income subject to tax, it doesn't stand in as an alternative to paying tax. And it doesn't carry over. In order to "not owe taxes", you would need to donate 100% of your income, and keep $0 for yourself. Even then, there's nothing that would carry over to the next year." - here we go again.
"See my comment here for more details on how a tax-deduction actually works." - bye felicia
"No, nothing is weird about that at all. Your lack-of-understanding is making you see conspiracy where it doesn't exist." - No wonder you aren't a member of any other subbreddit.
"But I do appreciate that you recognize (unlike so many others here) that her social-media influencer antics are not at all unusual for that field, and not the reason why Hilaria is a story." -I appreciate that you recognize you will never see the inside of this subreddit ever again.
"The Tax Map Parcel ID is 0300150000100001014 and the unofficial address is 361 Town Ln, Amagansett, NY, in case anyone can search a more-private MLS database or something like that. Where are my real-estate wonks?" - My god, what do you need the real estate listing for. Do you want me to do a title search too? How about a notarized copy of the deed?
"Before the sub devolved into a den filled with simple-minded dehumanizing Hilaria-haters, we used to get great info like this from people who knew the human Hilaria. Unfortunately that's mostly dried up, probably at least in part because people find this place too gross to associate themselves with it." - BITCH YOU GOT HERE 4 WEEKS AGO
When asked about how recording a podcast works we are treated to this:
"My experience was ~20 years ago, so hopefully enough knowledge would have trickled out by now, especially as recording techniques have continued to evolve and become democratized, that nothing that was surprising then would be particularly surprising anymore. But back then (especially in the rock/metal world I was in), everyone liked to envision the whole band rocking out together, and the engineer would just hit "record". No, in most cases, each guy sits alone and records his instrument all by himself (or maybe even one guy records both guitar and bass, but two guys get credited; especially the the "bass player" has great hair for the band photo, but kinda sucks at playing bass). Similarly, if the guitar part for a verse gets recorded, no need to play the whole song through, just copy and paste that part for the next verse. And then of course run auto-tune to correct the pitches of everything. So all stuff that was hardly "secret", even back then, but things people generally avoided learning about.
Once upon a time I was peripherally involved in the music industry, so that's what really opened my eyes to "things are not as they seem". Sitting in a recording studio while an album is being recorded makes you realize "the fans have NO idea what really goes on in here". And more than that, I learned that most fans don't want to know the truth about their favorite band, because if they did, it really doesn't take much effort to see the various subterfuges going on behind the curtain.
Unfortunately I was out of that biz before the explosion of the Influencer Economy, so like you, I wish I had more direct insight into that particular domain. I've always tried to pick up whatever factual information people would publicly reveal, but while I've read endorsement deals and recording contracts in the music biz, I've never seen one in this domain." - Sorry your shitty 80's hair band didn't get signed. Sounds like that autotune was working pretty hard. And once again, check yourself. Butch walker is a good friend of mine, he bought my friend's recording studio in atlanta. He has a book called Drinking With Strangers. You can learn from that. In the meantime, the question was about a podcast.
"Beware, checaco3 claims all sorts of things that we have no evidence for. They claimed 5 days ago to have a screenshot of a website where Hilaria's parents said they "were able to move to Spain AND start their business with a Generous Donation From HABF Foundation", but thus far have failed to produce said screenshot. I don't think it's malicious, it seems to just be a mis-remembering/mis-interpretation of different things that they saw." -FAILED TO PRODUCE A SCREENSHOT? is there some reason they are required to give you one?? malicious? dude, you have serious issues. and a lot of nerve
"We are on the same team! That's why I'm giving you the links to archive.org, to help you figure out how to find the evidence that Hilaria's parents were able to move to Spain AND start their business with a Generous Donation From HABF Foundation. And I really want to see the screenshot you have, because that would be some really good evidence of shadiness that hasn't been exposed yet! Is there anything I can do to help you find it? Do you need help searching your computer's drive?"-Nobody is required to give you dick so stop asking.
"But you had a screenshot, so them changing their website wouldn't matter. Did your computer die or something?" -what is your problem?
"Their website has changed formats over the years, but the content appears to have largely remained the same. You can use archive.org to find the evidence you're looking for in the old versions." -When did we hire a project manager in this sub??
"Here's an August 2020 version that looks just like the current website, but you can go back all the way to 2014 if you need to. https://web.archive.org/web/20200803124231/https://internationalintegrators.org/". -is there some reason you are assigning work to my redditors?
"Since you research charities to gauge their quality, you surely must be familiar with IRS 990 forms?" -Is this how you talk to people in real life? No wonder you work in computer hardware. Nobody wants to deal with listening to you.
"BTW, have you found that screenshot yet showing Hilaria's parents were able to move to Spain AND start their business with a Generous Donation From HABF Foundation? I'll help you shout that news from the rooftops if you can find it again." -Bring this up one more time. I dare you.
"For this theory to have any legs, I think you need to show evidence of a school transfer at some point. I don't believe we have that?" -I am so sorry you guys, I will never leave this sub alone again.
"It's all explained here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2350777/Twitter-time-bug-Alec-Baldwins-wifes-funeral-tweets-led-actor-unleashing-homophobic-rant.html"
"I'm not blaming you for getting it wrong or anything; being aware of the original (wrong) story and but not the later correction is a totally normal thing, I was just taking your post as an opportunity to make people more aware of the correction." - I'm going to make you aware of what a dick you are by getting you banned from DCUM too.
"Where in the article does it say that the horse rescue charges $1500 a month. It explicitly says the opposite, that the $1500/month is for horses that are NOT part of the horse rescue"
"Horse owners who pay to keep their animals at the barn make their checks out to “Alexander Baldwin III,” not to the incorporated, non-profit Amagansett Horse Rescue."
"There may very well be something untoward happening here! But misunderstanding the facts uncovered so far will only make that more difficult to uncover, not easier!" - STOP SPEAKING TO MY REDDITORS LIKE THEY ARE FIVE.
"Your understanding is incorrect. Non-profit schools charge tuition to students. Non-profit hospitals charge bills to patients. A non-profit stable charging rent for horse stalls would be completely legal and within the scope of a non-profit." - here we go again.
"But on top of that, it's not even clear that the non-profit is charging rent for horse stalls! The article makes it clear that there is both a non-profit, AHR, and a for-profit business, both being run at the same facility. The only evidence they offered of money being paid was to the for-profit side of the operation (the $1500 checks to Alexander Baldwin). The didn't have any record of money being paid to the non-profit (which, again, even if it was, that would be ok!)". - Dear God, where did I go wrong? What sin did I commit in my past life that of all the redditors in the world, I'm stuck with THIS one.
"But simply assuming "any foundation is suspect" is far more lazy and incorrect than assuming "anyone with a Spanish accent is Spanish". It's really not hard to look at individual cases and determine what the truth is, there's no value added by being broadly cynical." - Well, you are the expert when it comes to not adding any value to something.
"The implication the Post is trying to make is that the year's-rent was not a good-faith request from the landlord, but rather, a request that he knew would be impossible for Jan to meet; a way to terminate her lease while giving the landlord plausible deniability: "no, I didn't terminate the lease, she could have renewed for as long as she liked!" - We don't need you explaining a Post article to us. And besides that was reported everywhere.
"But yes, that in itself is a story that doesn't really make sense, because generally, it would be the landlord's job to do the property maintenance, not the tenant (Jan), so simply swapping tenants wouldn't necessarily improve anything at the property." - WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO?
"If someone half-interested comes to this subreddit to learn about Hilaria, they'll see it dominated by these meme-posts, and rightly say "huh, yeah, those ladies on The View and Hilaria and Alec were right, this *is* just a big pile-on; I doubt she actually did anything bad..." -She became a meme. That was the point. That went right over your 50 year old bald head.
"Diluting the sub dilutes the message of the unique bad thing Hilaria actually did." -Go start your own damn sub then.
"Without more detail, I don't yet see anything absolutely damning in regard to the non-profit relationships, though certainly the lack of transparency is concerning. It's interesting that the Post apparently saw an IRS 990 form for AHR, but don't provide it for the reader, and I can't find a public version." -Why on EARTH would the Post publish an IRS form.
"That's where critical-thinking skills come in, which should be active for all media consumption. Caveat emptor and all that. "This thing that's being presented to me, how could its presentation diverge from reality, and what could be the motivations behind that divergence?" -After I deleted your post for containing politics, you actually said because what you said about Trump was true that didn't count as political. Then insulted me by saying "now I know why the post was removed. You didn't understand that
"And for social media influencers in particular, it barely takes any critical-thinking at all! All you have to ask is "how do I, as a random nobody, use social media? Do I post an accidental, uncurated view of my life?" I think the answer is "hell no" for almost everybody, so it's insane to even use that as a starting assumption for people with huge followings."
"I think the thing is that people don't want to know that it's not real. Every single time I point out that Hilaria's photos are intentionally ridiculous because she wants to make money, I get downvoted to hell. I don't remember if I saw this reference here somewhere, but it's like professional wrestling: it's more entertaining to people (both in a want-to-be-the-face, and a hate-the-heel way) if they can maintain the illusion that it's all real."
"There is no evidence that Sarma was friends with Hilaria." - Except for the PICTURES I HAVE OF THEM TOGETHER.
"It looks like II was started ~2013, after the move to Spain. It's a super-small "business", I would guess that the parents are the only employees, and that it's just a structured way for them to "keep busy" in their retirement. It probably makes very little money (their "retreats" are very infrequent, and small), but it lets them putter around as much or little as they like, and feel like they're making a difference in the world."
"Where have you seen her say December 2010? Everything I recall seeing, they've both been consistent and specific, it was February 18, 2011 (they say it was an unusually warm day, and I've fact-checked that, and it's true!)". - How long have you been unemployed for?
"Ah, a link to a set of links...how it makes my heart sing".
"I should have searched to find that thread myself, but Reddit's search is such shit it discourages me from even trying"-
"I'm pretty sure from all my research that she was never technically an "owner" of Yoga Vida, that was one of her lies, but for the purposes of self-certifying, I think that's irrelevant. She was enough of a player in YV despite not being an "owner"- Sign that information up for kindergarten, because it's 5 years old. Lmao how much time did you waste on that?
"You're sure going to have to show where you came up with that "she was his yoga teacher first" thing, because that just ain't true as far as what anyone has uncovered until now. It was also more like sometime in 2009 (maybe as late as the beginning of 2010, when Yoga Vida launched) that "Hilaria" was born." -Nobody has to show you anything, GTFO.
"I'd say just edit your original post to add the El Mundo article (or replace the OE). Then newcomers will see the original source without having to dig into the comments, and there won't be two separate discussion threads." - Well, you wont have to worry about that anymore now, will you?
"In a better-run sub, we'd have a stickied post with a constantly updated list of references, but..." I DO. OKAY BYE.
"First day on the Internet? Here's how you make a link: https://www.yourtango.com/2020339461/who-sarma-melngailis"
"The entirety of evidence that Sarma and Hilaria knew each other comes from a single, anonymous post on DCUM, and it's just repeated on yourtango.com. That DCUM post also says "the article mentions the people who ponied up money to get Sarma out of trouble. Alec kicked in $100k on Hilaria's request", but the referenced NYPost article mentions no such thing."
"In other words, that's really not a credible source."
"I mostly agree the vision of The Birth Of Hilaria that you lay out here, I just think that using the word "con" to describe all that renders the word meaningless. I mean, women discover they get extra attention and affirmation when wearing low-cut tops and a push-up bra. Is that a "con" too? And I strongly disagree that a "long con" doesn't require a specific end goal. Look at the Wikipedia entry for "con" (which includes a section on "long con"). None of the language in that whole entry is remotely close to describing Hilaria's life or actions."
:And the "restauranteur fraudster-friend offered to set her up with Alec Baldwin" is one of the most non-sensical unsupported bits of wisdom that gets thrown around here. The only way involving Melngailis in Hilaria's story makes any sense is if Hilaria diverts a bunch of Alec's money to Melngailis, which if that happened, then I would definitely agree at least that part of it (but still not the Spanish part) was a long con!"
"Believe what you like, but just keep in mind that all successful detectives, from Sherlock Holmes on down, keep their emotions out of the way, because they make it harder to determine what is truth. No human in history was ever 100% anything (good, evil, liar, truthful), so reducing Alec (or anyone) to such a simple, one-dimensional caricature takes us further from truth rather than closer to it." -Sir, this is a Wendy's.
"No idea, she hasn't responded to my query yet. Official reason was "No Politics", but there weren't any politics in the post or happening in the comments. She was of the "Alec gave money to Hilaria's parents" camp, so I don't know if she just didn't like having that view challenged? Aw, shucks, you're making me blush. But I really appreciate it, especially since McNasty420 took down my deeply-researched RANA post today for no discernible reason, so that was making me feel like my work was a big waste of time. But maybe it's better that way, because yes, I'm sure my employer would appreciate me spending more of my skills on them rather than on this!" -Employer lol. So check this out. I removed it because it said Trump steals money from his foundation and this guy didn't consider that political because: "My statement about Trump's foundation wasn't a "theory", and more importantly, not any sort of value-judgement. I now understand that you weren't aware of how non-controversial my mention of Trump was". You are such a DICK. Where do you get the nerve to talk to people like that?
"Oh, yeah, I wasn't arguing your point or anything! I'd just had more time to look into his ancestry and wanted to write down some actual numbers."
That theory isn't possible, because she invented the Spanish persona long before she met Alec. That's a key fact to know for anyone trying to figure out the 'why' of it. It had zero to do with Alec, and was almost surely her own creation with no particular goal in mind (which the OP seems to understand)."
Oh, ok, awesome! Where's your screenshot? -What are you doing? Why do you need this?
How? You can't just say stuff like that without backing it up! "Hilaria is definitely connected to Spain" is a lie that you created this whole subreddit to expose, so let's not just take her place as people who claim untrue things!
And I'm saying none of what you're saying is true. You might have read something like that here, but that was from people who didn't know what they were talking about. There was no "generous donation to the parents in 2012" from ABF.
No, I'm saying that people here misinterpreted the RANA donation to be a donation to International Integrators (and then repeated it 'til it became conventional wisdom), but it's really not at all. Unless there was some *other* donation to II that has been found somewhere? -RANA is a side project under the umbrella of International Integrators now please STFU about it
OMG, and then did you hear where she said she lies to her kids that the wheels on the bus are broken, because she's sick of singing "The Wheels on the Bus"? Or that she hides the fact that she's going to be gone for a day or two from them? Oh wait, those were lies other moms reported telling their kids. It's all part of a regular segment called "Momfessions"! The whole point is to show that it's a fairly normal thing for parents to do. Pretending Hilaria is the only one who lies to her kids is weird, and completely ignores all the other parents who nod along and laugh in the audience. -Thank you, 50 year old guy with no kids.
Erm, his donations were definitely NOT funneled to family members; where did you get that from? Perhaps actually read my post!
Also, yes, he gets a tax deduction for charitable donations, but so does every US taxpayer. -WE KNOW. JESUS.
I'd like to say it's something about living the last four years in the US, when "the truth" seemed to matter less than it ever has before. Creating even awareness of the oft-repeated lies, much less consequences for them, felt like trying to push a pile of air up a hill. So when this opportunity came along at the end of 2020 to expose lies and establish truths, at a sweet-spot big enough where a significant number of people were paying attention, but small enough that I could play a personal role, where that pile of air transformed into something solid that I could definitively poke holes through, it felt like something I had to participate in. -FULL STOP. WHEN THIS OPPORTUNITY CAME ALONG? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MY SUBREDDIT?? PLAYING A PERSONAL ROLE? YOU ACT LIKE I HIRED YOU TO BLESS US WITH YOUR PRECIOUS GOOGLE SEARCHING ABILITIES. THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO EXPOSE LIES? AT THE END OF 2020? DUDE, THE LIES WERE ALREADY UNCOVERED. HENCE THE MEDIA FIRESTORM.
But that can only be at most a part of the answer, since I felt exactly the same obsession in 2016, when doing crowd-sourced investigation of the real-time cheating of Rob Young / MarathonManUK), a man who had claimed to run 365 marathons in a year, with 0 training, and then was caught (accidentally, by a fan) in the middle of the night riding on/in his support RV while he was claiming a world-record pace for a run across the US.
So for me, there's definitely a Sherlock Holmes factor. Just something about the investigatory process of discovering facts and organizing them to reveal lies, particularly when the lie is so bold, unusual, and created for mystifying reasons. -WE HAD ALREADY BROKEN THE STORY DIPSHIT.
n contrast to many here, the small lies that are pedestrian, banal, and created for obvious reasons (the presentation of herself as someone more-accomplished / put-together / knowledgeable than she actually is, in order to make money) hold no interest for me, since there is nothing unique to her there. Everyone who has ever attempted to make money from their personal brand has presented an embellished version of themselves, but almost no one has trapped themselves 24/7 for a decade walking through their life on such a high-wire of a lie as Hilaria has, while leaving the truth so discoverable far below the entire time.
Thank you! Finally an NYU post, that, while still lacking-in-receipts, at least comes from someone with a posting history that provides significant credibility, and written with a level of detail that provides trustworthiness on its own, but also matches all known facts from independent sources. -STOP. JUST STOP.
Didn't we go through this already? Yes, charitable donations lessen your tax burden. But they also lessen your wealth! Here is the itemized list of $1.4M in donations the ABF made in 2014. If he had *not* made those donations, yes, his tax bill would have been higher, but he would have had more money left in his bank account to spend on a yacht or whatever for himself. So lessening his tax burden cannot be his "entire goal". -for the 50th time, we know how taxes work.
It *has* made donations to the RANA foundation (approx. $70k total, I believe), which Hilaria's parents advertised on their website, but that's not "money to Hilaria's parents" (as people here often say), and I don't even see an obvious connection between the RANA foundation and the Hayward/Thomases. -IT'S LISTED AS A PROJECT ON THEIR WEBSITE DIPSHIT
It looks like it's this, a $369 dedicated paella grill. -this adds that "value" you provide to this sub you were talking about.
Ha. Yep, I'm of a similar age/era, and while I still have a FB account, I've never followed a single celebrity, brand, or even a business, and am rather baffled by people who do. -YET I'M 100% STALKING ALEC BALDWIN'S LIFE
Did you click my links on the bottom? By what rationale do you make the claim that she "brought things to an entirely different level"?
I linked to a picture of a naked mom taking a piss with her baby on her lap, showing off her toenails, and taking a selfie all at the same time! And it took me 2 minutes to find that.
In your original post, you say she was under "Hilaria Lynn Thomas". Here you say it was "Hilaria Haywood-Thomas". And the latter is definitely not, nor has it ever been, her last name! Not improving my confidence in your credibility here. -REMINDER. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SKIN IN THIS GAME. YOU SHOWED UP HERE ONE DAY AFTER THE STORY FINALLY STOPPED TRENDING AND TRIED TO REGULATE SHIT. NOBODY NEEDS TO HAVE "CREDIBILITY" WITH YOU. YOU ARE A BYSTANDER.
"As much as I'd like solid confirmation either way, this is most definitely not it. It's the first post from a brand-new account, and the details given make no sense."
"There is absolutely nothing unique about Alec and Hilaria here. Here's a random list I found in 2 seconds"
If I had kids
If you know nothing about language immersion, see what the Linguistic Society has to say on the matter.
The hard part is making sure they have enough natural exposure to both languages. Most of the time, one of the two languages you want them to learn will be "more important" somehow, and the trick is to provide enough opportunities for them to use the "less important" one in a way that isn't forced or artificial. The best way, if you can manage it, is to put children in situations where only the "less important" language is used so that there is no temptation to mix languages or revert to the "more important" language.
It doesn't say that he was also working in that period. Do you have that from another source?
"I graduated from a prestigious university (in my field), but don't have any cap-and-gown photos because I had no interest in attending the graduation ceremony." -PLEASE, I'M DYING. I CAN'T WAIT TO FIND OUT WHAT SCHOOL THIS WAS THAT PREPARED YOU FOR YOUR ILLUSTRIOUS CAREER IN COMPUTER HARDWARE.
" Have you attempted to try the online version I suggested to perhaps get something in writing? https://secure.studentclearinghouse.org/vslandingui/mosiac-landing-page"
"But if you spoke with NYU, and they told you straight up they have no record of her being a student, why are you even considering far-more-tenuous absence-of-evidence evidence like this?"
Your lack-of-understanding is making you see conspiracy where it doesn't exist. "Notability" is a requirement for a Wikipedia page to continue existing, and it's decided by other Wikipedia editors.
But I do appreciate that you recognize (unlike so many others here) that her social-media influencer antics are not at all unusual for that field, and not the reason why Hilaria is a story.
Um, those requirements are from St. Patrick Cathedral in Fort Worth, Texas.
Ugh, not very pleasant to see all those grouped together in an easily digestible list, but thank you!
First, this definitely isn't evidence that she's a hypocrite. That would require her to be a major player in the operation at Yoga Vida, which, just like extensive time in Spain, seems to be something she wanted people to believe, rather than something that's actually true.
Then, the plaintiffs allege that the instructors conspired to export YV's client database, which they were not authorized to do, and sent a mass email to that list of clients. I have no idea how meritorious such a lawsuit is
There have been a lot of people in this sub over the last couple weeks questioning "how did she get away with this for so long?? People on the Internet have been talking about it for at least 5 years! Why wasn't it a story until now?!" The non-answer answer is "because the right series of events hadn't happened until now". Essentially, the story hadn't bubbled up to enough influential and listened-to people until now, so it had very little spread. Part of the process for a story to bubble up to the next level of influence is for that level to have trust in the lower-level source. - YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN MY OWN STORY BACK TO ME THAT IS AT THE TOP OF THIS SUBREDDIT.
"Yeah, obviously even if I *had* the power to make this Reddit sub a repository of impeccably-sourced content, I know it wouldn't actually make a damn difference. But, I had to give it a shot anyway." -COME AGAIN?? YOU MEAN PEOPLE DIDN'T APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING UP OUT OF THE BLUE WAY AFTER THE STORY HAD RAN, ACTING LIKE AN OVERBEARING MANAGER WHO BERATES THEM FOR NOT DOCUMENTING THEIR "WORK" THE WAY YOU WANT IT DONE? THEY DIDN'T LIKE BEING GIVEN ASSIGNMENTS WITH DEADLINES? I'M SHOCKED THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT FOR YOU. This is Reddit, douchebag, not Time Magazine. And the story had already run. Everywhere. You showed up afterward, barked a bunch of demands at people, and are now complaining that my subreddit is unorganized and you "tried" to fix it but couldn't?
"Really it's just a nostalgic rant missing the "good old days" of this sub (like 5 days ago) when it was genuinely producing a high density of quality, original information that uncovered a lot of truth." --THEN LEAVE FINALLY
"Yeah, now this is the kind of quality-content I came here for!" -Reddit?
"I actually have Google Doc filled with links, mostly organized as a timeline of Hilaria's whole life. I've been trying to decide whether I should open it to crowd-sourced contributions, but it still feels a bit messy/incomplete for me to do that just yet." - AND IT'S SAFE TO SAY AFTER TONIGHT, YOU NEVER WILL.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, HE APPARENTLY INVENTED NAPSTER!!
"I was one of the first people in the world to host downloadable audio files on a website (from a dorm-room server), so I was long familiar with the music side of it. Once Spotify et al finally came along and revealed that "hey, if you make it easy, most people don't actually want to steal stuff" that really changed a lot in that world, a bit similar to what the changing business models have done for the software world."
​
Here is his "Manifesto":
https://www.reddit.com/HilariaBaldwin/comments/kp71jo/this_sub_has_begun_playing_right_into_hilarias/

Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption
The Brain on Porn
Simone Kühn, PhD1; Jürgen Gallinat, PhD2,3
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(7):827-834. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.93
Abstract
Importance Since pornography appeared on the Internet, the accessibility, affordability, and anonymity of consuming visual sexual stimuli have increased and attracted millions of users. Based on the assumption that pornography consumption bears resemblance with reward-seeking behavior, novelty-seeking behavior, and addictive behavior, we hypothesized alterations of the frontostriatal network in frequent users.
​
Objective To determine whether frequent pornography consumption is associated with the frontostriatal network.
​
Design, Setting, and Participants In a study conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, Germany, 64 healthy male adults covering a wide range of pornography consumption reported hours of pornography consumption per week. Pornography consumption was associated with neural structure, task-related activation, and functional resting-state connectivity.
​
Main Outcomes and Measures Gray matter volume of the brain was measured by voxel-based morphometry and resting state functional connectivity was measured on 3-T magnetic resonance imaging scans.
​
Results We found a significant negative association between reported pornography hours per week and gray matter volume in the right caudate (P < .001, corrected for multiple comparisons) as well as with functional activity during a sexual cue–reactivity paradigm in the left putamen (P < .001). Functional connectivity of the right caudate to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was negatively associated with hours of pornography consumption.
​
Conclusions and Relevance The negative association of self-reported pornography consumption with the right striatum (caudate) volume, left striatum (putamen) activation during cue reactivity, and lower functional connectivity of the right caudate to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex could reflect change in neural plasticity as a consequence of an intense stimulation of the reward system, together with a lower top-down modulation of prefrontal cortical areas. Alternatively, it could be a precondition that makes pornography consumption more rewarding.
​
Depictions of sexual content in films, music videos, and the Internet have increased in recent years.1 Because the Internet is not subject to regulations, it has emerged as a vehicle for circulation of pornography. Pornographic images are available for consumption in the privacy of one’s home via the Internet rather than in public adult bookstores or movie theaters. Therefore, the accessibility, affordability, and anonymity2 have attracted a wider audience. Research in the United States has shown that 66% of men and 41% of women consume pornography on a monthly basis.3 An estimated 50% of all Internet traffic is related to sex.4 These percentages illustrate that pornography is no longer an issue of minority populations but a mass phenomenon that influences our society. Interestingly, the phenomenon is not restricted to humans; a recent study found that male macaque monkeys gave up juice rewards to watch pictures of female monkeys’ bottoms.5
​
The frequency of pornography consumption has been shown to predict various negative outcome measures in humans. A representative Swedish study on adolescent boys has shown that boys with daily consumption showed more interest in deviant and illegal types of pornography and more frequently reported the wish to actualize what was seen in real life.1,6-8 In partnerships, a decrease in sexual satisfaction and a tendency to adopt pornographic scripts have been associated with frequent Internet pornography consumption.9 A longitudinal study following Internet users has found that accessing pornography online was predictive of compulsive computer use after 1 year.10 Taken together, the aforementioned findings support the assumption that pornography has an impact on the behavior and social cognition of its consumers. Therefore, we assume that pornography consumption, even on a nonaddicted level, may have an impact on brain structure and function. However, to our knowledge, the brain correlates associated with frequent pornography consumption have not been investigated so far.
​
Similar to theories taken from addiction research, it has been speculated in popular science literature that pornography constitutes a prewired, naturally rewarding stimulus and that high levels of exposure result in a downregulation or habituation of the neural response in the reward network. This is assumed to elicit adaptive processes in which the brain is hijacked, becoming less responsive to pornography.11 There is common agreement that the neural substrates of addiction consist of brain areas that are part of the reward network such as midbrain dopamine neurons, the striatum, and the prefrontal cortex.12,13 The striatum is assumed to be involved in habit formation when drug use progresses towards compulsive behavior.14 The ventral striatum in particular has been shown to be involved in cue-reactivity processing of various drugs of abuse15 but also in processing of novelty.16 Compromised prefrontal cortex function is among the major neurobiological modifications discussed in the research on substance abuse disorders common in humans and animals.17 In studies on pharmacological addiction in humans, volumetric alterations have been shown in the striatum and prefrontal cortex.18-20
​
Within the present study, we set out to investigate the neural correlates associated with frequent—not necessarily addictive—pornography use in a healthy population to explore whether this common behavior is associated with the structure and function of certain brain regions.

I've noticed a common recurrence with people on Dream's side, a little bit on this subreddit, but mainly- the people on the fence.
They don't know what to believe, who to believe, how to fact check the information because the truth is: they do not really understand the specific mathematics that has gone into this situation. And that's okay, because there's a much easier method of fact-checking, which only requires a basic understanding of English (and patience) to read this post. Feel free to correct me at any point in this post.
​
As a redditor with 700 followers for a dreamsmp newspaper (sorry for annoying y'all btw), I think that it's time I properly contribute to the subreddit with a standard test: CRAAP.
It stands for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose.
Currency: When was the information posted or published. The more recent it is, the better. People may also ask where the information is posted. It should also be considered if the information would be impacted by the latest findings or if it can be found from older sources as well. Also, if the source includes links, the links should be working. If it's a website, you should check for its domain, and also if the link reroutes you to the same website or a site that is related to the first website.
Relevance: When looking at the source, the topic should be related to the information presented in the source. The comprehension level should also be at an appropriate level for its audience, not being too rudimentary or advanced.
Authority: In order to trust a piece of information, you should at the very least have the author's credentials. When looking into a work, you should also consider the publishers and the sponsors. The author's credentials are important because this can help the readers know if the author is qualified to write on the topic as well as if they might be influenced to write in a different way than they normally would. 'There should be a contact information of the publisher or author'-Wikipedia on the definition of CRAAP literacy test. Author citations are very important for the trust to form between readers and writers.
Accuracy: The trustworthiness of a source would vary heavily based on spelling, grammatical, and typographical errors. Research papers have a standard to be free of these errors, and newspapers have that as a standard too. The language used has to be unbiased and free of emotions if it is being used for fact retrieval. It should also be verifiable from another source or common knowledge. Evidence should support the information presented, and it can come in the terms of findings, observations, or field notes.
Purpose: Is the source here to inform, teach, sell, entertain, aid in research, have an impact on self-gain? The intentions should be clear. In order to determine the source's purpose, one must first ask if it is fact, opinion, or propaganda, and if it has a political, personal, religious, or ideological bias.
​
I will be applying both of the tests in layman's terms to Geosquare's video and Dream's response. I will be honest: I am 95% convinced that Dream did cheat due to the overwhelming evidence from everywhere else other than that one guy he's hired. Billions of simulations, refuting work that is given by STEM workers from Switzerland to Columbia to a post on 4 Chan which could put 80% of essays to shame, statistics and speedrunning majorly agreeing that Dream cheated, or at the very least, the 19-page paper was 'hot garbage'. That's at least 5 different sources that shouldn't have anything to gain, and they don't relate to each other all that well, but they came to the same conclusion. unfortunately, after years in Math Olympiad with a teacher who loves having the minority right, I am slightly doubtful of Dream truly cheating, but I really hate how he handled the situation. Also, I'm a firm believer in following the same CRAAP test in the reviewing of both videos, so if my bias shows, let me know immediately.
​
Geosquare's video(+29 page report):
C- Uploaded on 12 December 2020. General consensus is that the mods have been working on the paper and video for 2 months. Geo and the mods team are answering DMs about the situation, as I could see from a few reddit posts on here from at most a day ago. The latest findings like the run simulations, blogs from Columbia experts, Swiss mathematician student (Spelling errors, but due to the Swiss student admitting that his English could be unbearable, it is understandable), comments made by u/mfb- (sorry to tag you here), Mojang game developer (twitter: Xilefan https://twitter.com/Xilefian/status/1338523642364366853 ) and general consensus by subreddits statistics and speedrunning support this 'slightly outdated' claim. Updates have also happened in terms of tweets by the mods, rectifying miscommunications about the mod files.
R- I would say that Geosquare's video is entirely on the topic all of the time. The 29-page paper that came with it also explained a lot of things. I'd say that Geoquare's video is much clearer than Dream's in the way that he speaks without emotions affecting him and only presenting evidence.
A- I would not say that 'speedrun mods' are properly qualified for the statistics, but due to Dream not wanting them to hire a 3rd party statistician, they did do the best they can. Half a point is given because they did give their credentials as well as how they can be contacted. They are not sponsored due to the law around sponsorships and their general lack of a product/service to market, in fact, they are making absolutely no money for the 2 months that they did put into the video. (It's not entirely 2 months, rather, minutes to hours of work every few days, but even then it is a lot.)
A- There is only one source semi refuting the claims, stating that the mods have gotten the math wrong, and even then it could still be high enough of a number to prove that Dream has cheated. I would like to reiterate the support for the mods in all sorts of different communities:

1. subreddits statistics and speedrunning, (refuting the poorly done paper)
2. 4 chan people who actually cared about the situation, (explaining the maths once more)
3. simulations by the people on this very subreddit [I've seen at least 3 different people posting about it with similar results] (experimenting using simulations)
4. STEM workers who wouldn't hate on Dream without a reason, (further refuting the paper)
5. Speedrun mods of bedrock, (expressing why this speedrun drama is important)
6. Multiple YouTubers who have their own fans, who probably didn't have a single content that related to Dream until the drama (providing reasons on why Dream would cheat)

P- I would say that this source is here to inform us of the mods decision to not verify Dream's speedrun. I would say that it serves to teach us that no matter how large your online personality is, nothing will be slipped past the mods. The mods shouldn't have an issue with Dream if he is to be nice as we all believe.
​
Dream's video(+19 page report):
C- Uploaded on 23 December. The information here is used to disprove old sources. The website, Photoexcitation, has been under a lot of scrutiny, and posts on this subreddit would probably explain to you why this website made in 2020 is such a shady choice.
R- Whilst watching Dream's response video and reading the comments, I saw a 2.1k likes comment (at the time of viewing) which said something like: I have ADHD and the way Dream made this video was very distracting to me. I think that this says something about the video. There is a general consensus that less than 50% of Dream's video was using logos to articulate his point. Instead, most of it was pathos mixed with some ethos. (Logos = logic, Ethos = authority, Pathos = emotions. These are 3 argument methods used to appeal to the human mind) Normally, this would be okay. Pathos is an extremely powerful tool to persuade a human person. However, since the topic at hand is entirely based on logos, not the morals or ethics of a situation, this is irrelevant in terms of research and the only purpose it has is to convince people that he did not cheat, even though the evidence does not align with what he wants his audience to believe. I would say that 70-80% of the video was him going on about opinions since he did only bring up 2 new equations in the entire 24-minute video.
A- Dream would be given 1/3 of a point for authority. An astrophysicist from Harvard wouldn't be as good as a statistician, he would still be more qualified than your average teenager or even adult. Maths is notoriously known for being a hated subject after all. However, we do not know if the anonymous guy, who we do not even have an online name to refer to, did graduate from Harvard with the degree, had the degree at all, or if Dream is just making him up. The fact that Photoexcitation is a .com website, a Wix one, a one that was just created in 2020 does not give it good looks at all. This is why when I see a comment which looks like it was made by a Dream stan, it's made by someone who created their account in 2020. It applies to both YouTube and Reddit. Besides, photoexcitation and astrophysicist focus on planetary science. Their jobs aren't mainly statistics, even though they would use it quite regularly. It is just odd that Dream didn't hire a statistician, and even odder since he backtracked on what he said to the mods that by hiring a 3rd party person, it would be biased.
A- I would say that there is no actual 'qualified' person who agrees with Dream. I would say not even the unknown astrophysicist's findings say that Dream's run is just luck. 1 in 100 million is still a 0.000001% chance, which is still really low but has less astronomical odds than 1 in 7.5 trillion or 1 in 34 quintillions. The only people who agree with him are small YouTubers who are not qualified/presenting any qualification to determine if the math is right or wrong, and comments who are persuaded by Dream's speaking skills and his popularity.
P- This source is to inform us that Dream did not cheat, although there is a slight complication in terms of publishing and sponsorships. Dream is the one to publicise the information, not the unnamed guy who was paid $50 for a 19-page report (where it should have been $1600 for a 3 paged report). I would say that they would have a higher incentive to cheat due to the cash presented.
​
Anyway, I hope that you guys tolerated this post. Please, if I missed out on anything critical, feel free to insult me in the comments.

Hello N.A.S, I really enjoy that acronym. My question mainly has to do with three things;

1. Where do you stand on Praxeology?
2. What do you think can be said by the different approaches of AE, such as radical subjectivism, extreme apriorism, and the (seemingly) in between subjectivist?
3. What do you consider to be the appropriate route for understanding and influencing economic policy through an AE mindset?

I am curious due to my recent reading on Lachmann and others to help me get prepared for a paper I am writing. The paper is centered on using the knowledge problem as a guiding force for economic policy. While in just my general readings and research about methodology and routes for AE, I came across four great pieces I found insightful. The first of which is Austrian economics without extreme apriorism: construing the fundamental axiom of praxeology as analytic. This paper has been super insightful since I haven't really found the argument that HA is synthetic to be that compelling, although I am on a path towards a better understanding of "synthetic apriori" through more readings on epistemology and rationalism. I just don't know if I would label HA as such, but that's possible to change. The second paper I have read is Praxeology: Who Needs It. In the paper, Praxeology: Who Needs It, Long outlines praxeology in the perfect manner in my opinion. It signals to all, the Analytic, Law of Nature, and Synthetic formulations of praxeology. I think this paper is extremely convincing. My last two readings that I want to share are this discussion thread on Lachmann, and Praxeology and Understanding by Selgin. Now that I have finished sharing what I read up on recently I think it's fair to share my opinion on these questions, and maybe someone who responds can expand on something. Maybe even give me a direction for my upcoming paper and Austrian economist's understanding of policy.
How I feel about AE's methodology and usage of praxeology: I find myself in the Hayekian-Kirznerian camp on Austrian Economics. My view is much like Selgin in this clip (watch from 57:45 - 1:07:00, although this podcast episode was excellent). To my understanding praxeology is the theoretically valid claims regarding Human Action, what it doesn't tell us is how much these apply to our circumstances. For instance, ABCT may tell us why housing could be affected by an expansion of credit but won't tell us the expectation changes that incentivized housing in particular during the 2008 housing crisis. I don't know what to say regarding the radical subjectivist, I think Lachmann has some amazing insights, much of which I haven't full dived into such as his views on expectations, for example:

"Right at the very end of "Role" Lachmann tackles the nature of expectations within the ABCT. He points out, as was was pointed out many times after him, that for a business cycle to occur as a result of the credit expansion which reduces the interest rate, expectations must be elastic. In other words, investors must expect that the new interest rate will endure sufficiently long for them to want to change their investment decisions. By contrast, if investors know the ABCT and believe it, they will expect the interest rate to be unsustainably low and will not alter their investments in the manner suggested by the theory. It is clear from his words that Lachmann is skeptical about the ABCT.
In his response Mises says that Lachmann's article "deserves careful attention" and that he fully agrees with him. (Mises 1943, 251) He goes on to say:
But I want to point out that I did not fail to state the fact that my explanation of the trade cycle is based on such an assumption [of elastic expectations].… The economic consequences of credit expansion are due to the fact that it distorts one of the terms of the speculators and investors calculation, namely interest rates. He who does not see through this, falls victim to an illusion; his plans turn out wrong because they were based on falsified data. Nothing but a perfect familiarity with economic theory and the careful scrutiny of current monetary and credit phenomena can save a man from being deceived and lured into malinvestments. [252]
These words by Mises are an important concession to Lachmann's skepticism and probably deserve more attention than they have received." - Taken from Peter Lewin, "Lachmann, Unions, and Austrian-Business Cycle Theory".

I haven't done much reading on Austrian Economics and the hermeneutics debate, though the AE discord server has a section on methodology explicitly on it that I can read. Do any of you have any views on hermeneutics? I think the appropriate route is outlined best in Austrian Economics: An Introduction, Horwitz says this;

The universalizing aspirations of Menger’s Principles and Mises’s Human Action have been combined with Hayek’s work on the differences between intimate and anonymous social orders to create an analytical framework for rendering a whole variety of human social behavior intelligible. Contemporary Austrian economists are engaged in a project of comparative political economy that offers “analytical narratives,” rooted in the microeconomics of Menger, Mises, and Hayek, to explain the puzzles of modern economic and social life. Consistent with the subjectivism and spontaneous order theorizing that characterized Hayek’s description of social scientific methodology after World War II, this modern Austrian work starts with the perceptions of actors and explains the patterns of unintended consequences that emerge from the choices individuals make on the basis of their perceived means-ends frameworks and the constraints imposed by both scarcity and the institutional environment. Rather than relying solely on econometric techniques, these analytical narratives embody a pluralistic approach that makes use of a variety of empirical evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, as is appropriate for explaining the particular puzzle in question.

I find myself in agreement most with this train of thought. As noted in the post made 20 days ago titled Where Do You Agree With the Mainstream and Where Are You More Heterodox and Skeptical, users such as u/thundrbbx0, u/Austro-Punk, and u/RobThrope illustrate generally the same views I have such as "Skepticism of economic aggregates" and "If there is to be no empirics at all, then there is very little we can say about Economics".
Conclusion:
I'll end this with my views on economics as a field and as a philosophy. As my name might suggest, I believe there are apodictic statements regarding economics, in general, what we call economic laws. May they be laws of action, synthetic, or analytical, I believe them to exist. We can use empirical data to signal if a case follows the praxeological theory we have. The complex part is the subjectiveness, individual actions surrogates knowledge, this knowledge isn't perfect and if aggregated it can be even more foggy and problematic. Expectations, entrepreneurship, and actions matter in a market, but they don't always fit as perfect pieces in our puzzles when we try to understand them with only theory. There are too many variables when dealing with a complex system and therefore aggregation can be harmful and deserves skepticism. I will leave it there, I am grateful for any and all responses. I hope to read some insightful and intriguing responses. I would also like to thank u/thundrbbx0, u/Austro-Punk, u/RobThrope, and others for keeping the online Austrian Economic discussions great and thought-provoking. I hope to write more, understand more, and work more for economic freedom, and hope to work with some of you later down the line. Thank you <3
ps: sorry for any errors.

"You cannot convince a Solipsist that anything is real". That sounds like a challenge to me
I wanna remain anonymous, but heres a little bit of background on me, I'm a Metalhead from England. I've always been very Scientific and Philosophical, which unfortunately can be a difficult mix because they often contradict eachother.
I recently had a big Existential crisis of a Solipsist nature, which given the current circumstances of the world post Covid, I'm not surprised. I've had questions about my reality since I was 16 when I had an existential crisis of a similar nature. Through some research, I've concluded its a load of shit, a side effect of our complex minds. But obviously a solipsist would explain that by saying that very conclusion is also an illusion created by the mind.
I'm going to give you some options that lead to my revelation or the egocentric stupidity of Solipsism

1. The video "Is anything real" by Vsauce helped me last time, and this time. He talks about the concept of the Phaneron, which is the imaginary line that seperates our mind from the universe outside, which serves to confirm that while all our perceptions are created from reality, we can't escape out minds, we ARE our minds, and by extension our bodies, and by extension, the universe
   
2. I realised that the concept of the universe being created by my mind, and my mind being created by the universe are essentially the same thing, they both exist, therefor it doesn't matter which one came first. However, there is more evidence that the universe came first.
   
3. Alan Watts states that trying to understand the nature of the Universe is like trying to catch a river in a bucket, and trying to fully understand the self is like trying to bite your own teeth, or eat your own mouth.
   
4. Everything, EVERYTHING, is cause to effect. I didn't start thinking Solipsistically until I watched a video about the Boltzmann brain theory of reality. I was also literally hours away from starting my first job since Covid. The stress combined with the subconscious memory of watching that video being processed in my sleep, leading to a nightmare, caused me to wake up with the thought that all my memories were a lie up till now (Last Thursdaysim). My solution to this was that the human brain is not perfect, we can't recall every single memory all the time because we're constantly making new ones, because like everything else, we are subject to cause and effect.
   
5. Understanding that time is just a measurement of events and their relation to their environment (my bastardised understanding of Relativity) helped too
   
6. I realised that NO MATTER WHAT, the world didn't give a shit how I was feeling or what I was thinking. All that was happening was I was pointing my mind at itself, and letting my subconscious run my life while I was pondering the futility of existence. It suggested to me that theres more going on. The Qualia (google it, very difficult to explain) doesn't change, which again, means atleast SOMETHING is pre-determined
   
7. Occums razor. Was it more likely that the universe all came into existence a second ago? Along with ALLL the proof that it didn't? Or did I just have a silly thought?
   
8. Unfalsifiable does not mean true. Just because I can't prove Solipsism wrong, doesn't mean it's right. I can't prove that there aren't pink elephants in my rectum that dissapear when observed. Are they real? Well we can't know, but we do know I have a rectum, which means atleast that is true, so therefore again, there is a reality.
   
9. NOTHING. Theres no such thing as nothing. Empty space isn't empty, dead people still exist, they're just dead, etc. This lead me to point 10
   
10. Definitions. Whats real and whats not? Well, people say dreams aren't real. Well they are, they're dreams. They're real as dreams. The events we think we perceive didn't happen in real life, they're just the mechanical process of the brain digesting information, and healing the body. So they are real, just not in the same way as the rest of the world. Dreams are just an illusion that happens during sleep.
    
11. Consciousness. We are more than our consciousness. We remember things whether we realise it or not. We have multiple processes going on at once. Just because you don't THINK you know something, doesn't mean you actually don't. For example, if someone says "You're bouncing your knee", generally, you don't say "AAA WTF?" You say "I know". You knew, you just weren't paying it your full attention. Its the same as riding a bike, or driving a car while having an argument with someone in your head. You aren't the ego, thats just refined self awareness. You're more than that, even if you're not always thinking about it, which again, suggests reality is out there, not in here
    

I hope this helps some of you. I don't particularly want a philosophical debate, just wanna stop people blowing their brains out 😂

Sup yall.
Gotta say, I'm proud of the evolution of this sub. When I first encountered it it was pretty much wall to wall date rape advice. Now I see like, how to respect yourself irl and wall to wall figuring out how to date and fuck the right way, consensually and with respect for them and yourselves. 10 years is a hell of a drug.
So now I come back with what'll probably turn into a fairly long essay on at topic I do not see all that much on here, at least from skimming through the first few pages of the sub.
Warning, this will be long as fuck. I always am.
Matches in Dating and sex, or, Why you sometimes see average people with really hot people and they're both insanely happy.
Imagine for a moment that every person in the world who is of a proper orientation to date or fuck you has a number from 0-100 floating over their head. That number represents a life compatibility average. Attitudes, views, emotional and physical needs, hobbies, emotional range and preferred love languages, life goals, random personality qualities like how materialistic, how intellectual, how silly or how angry that person gets on a regular basis.
The higher the number, the better the potential sex or relationship.
0-50 is super super fucking common. Think about humans for a moment. We all experience the same basic emotions absent certain neurodivergence or mental illness. In fact, if you think about like cultural conditioning on top of just things humans have biologically in common, think about the effects of things like geographic region you were raised in, values you were raised around, in your local area you could say that it's hard to find someone below like 40% generally. Humans on a base level do have shit in common.
70% and up, not super common. Findable, definitely. Not hard to find. But you do have to look.
80%+ is rare
90%+ is a fucking search.
100% does not actually exist outside of your imagination. As no two humans are entirely different, none of us are clones of each other either.
If I look at someone and see a 95 over their heads, its entirely possible you would look at them and see a 40 over their heads. Compatibility is individual. Everyone sees at least slightly different numbers.
The higher the match percentage, the more time you can spend in parallel with very little effort. Sex drives match? Not miserable with one of you chasing the other. Political views match? You can talk about politics safely without pissing each other off. Life goal match? You not only have shit to talk about, but you likely see the world in similar ways and see yourselves in similar ways. Emotional match? Your moods aren't going to disrupt each other and interfere with connection.
If you think about personality, imagine that you took every possible personality quality someone might have and rated it from 0-10. 0 Is "not that person at all" and 10 is "this is that person every day of their life" You can like rank out a person on their personality and what qualities they have in what proportion. 10 charisma 3 introvert over extrovert, 0 likes pets, 7 wants kids, 4 happy, 9 anxious, you know whatever. Whatever their personality stats in the RPG of life would be.
People in real life have types. Different emotional ranges, different preferences, but with 7 billion humans I have found that there is a simple truth. If you find one personality type, there are alot more people with that personality type out there to find.
If you're looking for a match above 90%, in a world with 7 billion humans that means that there are roughly 35 million women out there who are pretty fucking compatible with you.
Thirty. Five. Million.
But looking for one of 35 million is in fact a needle in a haystack search if there are 6,965,000 straws of hay in the pile.
Its like, on the one hand, abundance mentality is absolutely correct. Even if you are picky as fuck there are a ton of people who are compatible with you.
On the other hand, there's a level of scarcity to it too. You've got to find a match, they've gotta be single, in a place to date, and lol hopefully they have a clue what they are looking for as well.
How do you find a match?
Step 1: Some seriously deep self knowledge.
Men aren't taught to be in touch with their emotions well. Male stoicism factually stunts our emotional growth, denying us experience with our emotions. Children are overwhelmed by their emotions, and then with healthy raising and development, they learn to think and feel at the same time, which enables emotional processing and yes we're getting into legit therapy shit lol. Toxic masculinity shit, shaming dudes for feeling and exhibiting their emotions stunts our growth so that we remain in the childhood level of getting super overwhelmed by our emotions.
To the point, I saw someone make a great ass post about distress tolerance and learning to handle discomfort without flinching. And I saw a suggestion either from the OP or a comment about like taking cold showers being a great way to learn tolerating a bit of discomfort.
That's a super emotionally repressed way to go about discomfort training yourself. Forcing physical discomfort because you are so unused to emotional discomfort that you can't even really imagine thinking yourself into an emotionally uncomfortable place and dealing with it That's emotional processing.
Emotional processing is required for the kind of self knowledge that enables true match seeking.
Because the most BASELINE part of matching with someone is actual emotional compatibility. Emotional compatibility is what makes even casual sex great. If you think and feel the same way about sex, even in a completely casual encounter you can like have casual intimacy in bed, talk about how you feel about the casual sex, bounce ideas thoughts and feelings off of each other, and drive each other fucking nuts.
You have to know what your emotions do, what they need ,so you can find someone who matches it and has an emotional range and presence that is compatible with you.
Step 2: Figuring out your type
What is your ideal relationship thats not an idealized fantasy? What's your real world best possible life or hookup? Also part of self knowledge. You find your ideal first, and then you start adjusting it in realistic directions. You go from what's ideal, to what is ideally possible.
What is ideally possible is finding someone who wants what you want and needs what you need and who sees things the way you see things.
This is the step that involves going out and talking to a shitload of women. This is not approaches. This isn't going out and trying to succeed. This is anthropological field research. You go search out women who are into the shit you are into and who see things the way you see them and you start having conversations. You learn to pick their brain, to ask personal questions, you find girls that are into what you are into and after you finish starting a conversation connecting (just platonically) over a subject of mutual interest you start exploring what else they are like. What else they think and feel.
And you evaluate all of it towards figuring out what the number over this persons head actually is. Is she an 80? Is he a 50? Are they a 95? That's your entire goal. Go out, talk to people, figure out what number is actually irl floating over their head when you personally look at them.
When you start finding people who are I would say ideally at least 80% or above matches with you, you start quizzing them on what they want in a partner. This is a survey, have a sample size. You don't want the opinion of 1 80 percenter. You want 10, 20, 50, 100 opinions. You want as much data as you can farm from people willing to talk to you.
When you have a solid idea of who your type is, and what that type most commonly directly responds that they want in a partner, you now have multiple direct targets for self improvement. Your goals are no longer general. They are specific to the kind of people you want to attract most.
And yes, this is a goddamn life project, not a simple "oh I got a tip now I go try it out"
Step 3: How to have a personal conversation
Seen commentary about like people asking boring questions, not knowing how to converse.
Conversation, like sex, is both an art and a skill.
The single most important thing you can learn in interpersonal conversation is ASK OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS
Think about it this way. Do you want to have to ask 25 questions to get a single story worth of information? Fuck no. You want to get them talking without prompting.
The second most important thing is MOAR QUESTIONS!
Can and have sustained entire conversations with women where I almost do not talk about myself at all. Yet, I remain in control of the conversation entirely. How do I do that? I pick things I want to know and I ask focus/followup questions. I direct the conversation towards things I want to know about women, and when I find something that I relate to, I ask them more detail oriented questions. This keeps them talking, keeps the information flowing, demonstrates interest in the topic, and if you remember the shit they say, welp again, farming for information is never a bad thing whether you're looking for a wife or a fuck.
The third most important thing is ASK FOR EMOTIONAL CONTEXT
Do not spend your time dwelling on the facts. Remember the facts, but spend your time focusing on what someone thinks and feels about a situation. Not like the story of what happened. Look at the story, listen to their tone, figure out (even if you're guessing) what they felt about it. Offer hypothesis and ask for confirmation, or ask them how something made them feel.
The fourth most important thing is ASK IN THE DIRECTIONS OF YOUR PERSONAL INTEREST
What truly makes a conversation flow is when you demonstrate interest in what someone else is saying, and you get them interested in your response. Asking questions towards what you personally like or are interested in gives you opportunities to relate. Ask them to tell a story from their childhood and find one you can tell that echoes it, that relates to the emotional content of their story. Ask someone to tell you how they felt about something and describe in response a time you felt the same way.
The fifth most important thing is ACTIVE LISTENING
- Say what they said back to them in your own words to demonstrate cognitive understanding
- Comment your understanding of their emotional response (demonstrate empathy and sympathy)
- Make non interruptive emotional statements that are your reactions to what is happening. If something surprises you, say it. "Damn, that's fucked" or "Shit that's awesome" or whatever else is contextually appropriate.
- LET THEM FINISH SPEAKING
The sixth most important thing is CONTAIN YOUR EMOTIONAL REACTIONS UNTIL YOU HAVE THOUGHT BEFORE YOU SPEAK
Men talk about like "oh shit, what if she sees my feelings girls don't like that...
:Bald Kevin Spacey Face: WROOOONNNNNGGGG!
What no one likes is when your emotions overwhelm your rationality and you are not in control of yourself while feeling. Women LOVE seeing your emotions. They do not like seeing you utterly out of control of your emotions.
I have a movie for all of you to watch, if you have not. Inside Out. Yep. Go watch a fuckin disney movie for me.
The protagonist begins with a child's simple emotional experience. Every memory is a single color. Anger, joy, disgust, etc. She experiences trauma, it fucks her up, causes dissociation (non responsive control panel) and at the end of the movie she experiences emotional processing. Thinking while crying, talking through her shit. In that moment of processing, she grows up. She experiences not one but TWO emotional responses at the exact same time, and a new memory that is multicolored is born.
Complex. Emotional. Experience.
A child's one dimensional emotions are overwhelming as fuck. People OFTEN feel more than one emotion in response to situations, but as a child usually the strongest emotion wipes out all the rest. When we grow in experience with our emotions, we learn to think while we feel. Once we learn to think while we feel without suppressing our emotions, our thoughts about a situation can bring into focus different emotions we feel in response to that situation, and boom. Complex emotional experience.
At the point you have that, you are fully capable of sharing your emotions with others in a self controlled and self possessed way such that when you do not get overwhelmed by your emotions, neither do the people you talk to about them. This is what enables you to share your emotions, because you can share them when appropriate, hold emotions you feel to share until later if it is not appropriate, and not burst at the seams with emotions you do not know how to express or deal with.
And the last most important thing to interpersonal conversations. MAINTAIN A NONJUDGMENTAL PRESENCE
I'm gonna be 100% honest with yall. I am a vicious fucking cunt in my head sometimes. Truly. Sometimes I just see someone and rip them three new assholes in my head and they never know it.
Gate that shit.
If you want to get to know someone, hold all judgment at the very least until the end of the conversation. Listen before you judge, but if you judge before you are finished listening KEEP IT TO YOUR FUCKIN SELF.
Maybe you listen to something you don't like and she's not right for you. Finish the conversation, leave amicably, set her ego down as gently as you can. Maybe you listen to something you are now worried about and want to address. Wait to bring it up until you've thought about how BEST to bring it up to her to ask her nonjudgmental questions and give her the opportunity to clear the air or your bad impression of her. Maybe that works, maybe it doesn't.
But if women can smell a nonjudgmental presence on you, if you give them a safe space to talk and be accepted, (true for all humans) they open up and talk. And once again, information farming gets easier. Cause think about it this way. Even if you find out you don't like a girl, sure whatever. If you end the conversation the second you find that out, information farming is over. Maybe there are other things about her you might like enough to counter balance it, or maybe it's a dealbreaker but you can still find things about her you like to look for in other people who do not have the dealbreaker.
If you lose interest in someone, be clear about it. At the end of the conversation. If not, hold your detailed responses until you have processed what you feel in response to her and decide what you want to find out or say to her in response to what she said.
I'll close this out with some personal anecdote.
When I was 18 I was about as socially backwards as it is possible to be due to childhood abuse and horrible overall socialization and extreme social isolation. I was never an incel, I had a period of about a year where I was legit in forever alone territory though.
Then 2003 hit, I graduated high school and moved to college and got my first access to a high speed internet connection that was unmonitored. Besides the absolutely massive amount of porn I watched and movies and games I torrented, I went and searched out relationship and sex advice communities. I devoured that content. In 2003 like no one I knew had spent much time talking to girls 1 on 1 about dating and sex, asking their opinions, and thanks to the glory of the anonymous internet suddenly I had more access to random conversations with anonymous strangers about sex and likes and dislikes etc than I ever dreamed of having in the 90s when people were recommending "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" as like a place to go to to figure out what women want from dating.
And I met my type. She was a submissive little married to a Daddy dom who ran the sex and relationship advice community I participated in. Kinky and fucked up, loved dark shit in bed, was also a mother and like emotionally stable and happy in her life. Fell head over heels in love knowing she was completely off limits.
So I made friends. I used all the shit above to ask her everything I could think of about herself, and she was so flattered she let me pump her for information not just about herself, but about her husband. What woman in love doesn't like going on about her partner? Few I've met.
I farmed her for information for 6 solid months. I found out how her husband attracted her, what he was like, what she wanted from life and relationships, what made her husband an excellent dominant in her eyes, what she liked in bed and how he did it to her. Every single goddamn detail that woman was willing to talk about, I got her to talk about.
And I set out in my life to find a single version of her.
Turns out she's not that uncommon an overall type, and allowing for personality variances that do not make women of this type incompatible with me, there's a shitload of women out there just like her who are attracted to guys just like I now am.
I learned to have my emotions without hiding them or losing myself in them. I learned how to be a damn good dominant. I learned to let out my goofy side alot more and relax and joke and not take shit so fucking seriously. I learned how to be an excellent father.
I learned how to be what the women I am attracted to want.
I didn't change myself. Like, if you have a tree and you shape it to grow a certain way, does it go from an oak to a cedar tree? Fuck no. It just fills the shape. Shape it too much you stunt the tree, you have to shape in ways compatible with the tree.
Self knowledge. You grow in directions you personally want to go shaped to be compatible with who you want to be with. Be your own bonsai.
I am now kinda in demand. Excellent dominants are not easy to find, go visit any BDSM sub on reddit and you'll find complaints about it. I'm emotionally intelligent and present, I know how to talk to girls and I know how to seek the kinda girls who are attracted to my personality and presence.
I found my niche in the dating world.
Find your niche. Find your type(s). Find yourself along the way. Own yourself. Are you a dominant? Learn to do it healthy? Are you a subby dude? Own it. Without followers leadership means nothing, you are not a leader, just a human with leadership qualities. Are you kinky with an insane sex drive? You need a match. Are you vanilla with a low libido? For Christs sake find a girl who doesn't want to fuck that often so you aren't both miserable. Are you super political? Find someone who is too. Are you super interested in video games? Girls play games now, find someone to play with you.
When you have those things down, all you have to do is go show yourself around to the right people.
My very last tip for the day.
The best time to start flirting is immediately after giving someone a genuine and positive emotional reaction.
Learning to press emotional buttons to get a positive reaction out of someone is like, the master class. Telling an effective joke, telling an affective story, relating to someone's emotions in a way that shows yours and allows them to relate right back, demonstrating empathy such that they're like "FUCKING THANK YOU YOU GET IT!"
These are my tools in dating and sex. These are how I get women to be seriously interested in me. I have learned my type so well I have a solid idea of the spectrum of emotional buttons I can press to get good reactions and ways to do it. I can make girls laugh on purpose, I can make them smile or aww.
I do that then tell the "Damn you look really cute when you giggle" and shit. Go from laughter to complimented blush. When in the midst of a positive emotional reaction to you, her emotional guard is down. Chain platonic positive emotions into romantic/sexual positive emotions. Make her smile then make her blush. You will fuck this up trying, mostly because you have to figure out boundaries along the way and until you tune yourself in you will at times embarrass yourself overstepping or miss the mark on the reaction you want.
Totally possible to recover from if you can handle a bit of in the moment discomfort.
But even if you are not a master at pushing emotional buttons, that does not mean you cannot capitalize on accidentally making her laugh, making her smile, just being yourself and getting good reactions and using them to step forward in the emotional communication and as an opportunity to start showing her your attraction to her in real time and gauge her reactions to it.
If you do all this shit and the interaction sucks, congrats you just met a below 50%. "You're really cool but not really compatible with me, I think we should stay friends and see other people if that's cool with you. If not it was really nice to meet and talk to you, the conversations were fun"

The Tolkien Gateway website lists various unpublished writings and manuscripts:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Unpublished_material
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Category:Manuscripts_by_J.R.R._Tolkien
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Index:Writings_by_J.R.R._Tolkien
Two of the more interesting items listed in my opinion are:

Note about the location of the Dúnedain ("In January of 2000, David Salo shared the following information on the Internet: 'There is a short but hardly legible note which Tolkien wrote for insertion into the story of Aragorn and Arwen (and which was not in the event used); it includes information about the location of the Dunedain. Because of the difficulty of the note, the information is not entirely clear, but it suggests that the Dunedain lived in woodlands between the Mitheithel and Bruinen. Source: microfilms at Marquette University, Series 3, Box 9, Folder 3.'")[4]
Essay, written in response to seeing Pauline Baynes's depiction of various characters from The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien described each member of the Fellowship of the Ring and some other persons as he pictured them — an invaluable aid to any illustrator of his work. [Bodleian Library, Oxford: Dept. of Western Manuscripts, Mss Tolkien A61, fols. 1—31.])

see this old thread for more infomation on this essay:
https://www.reddit.com/tolkienfans/comments/5w9j4j/does_anyone_have_more_information_about_this/
Some of the other texts listed above have actually been published-either in part, or in obscure journals/fanzines etc:
-Some of the The Tales And Songs of Bimble Bay can be found in Douglas A Anderson’s The Annotated Hobbit (2nd edition, 2003), together with a previously unpublished poem ‘’Elvish Song In Rivendell’’ and a lengthy draft of The Quest of Erebor different to the version found in Unfinished Tales.
-The Biographical work Tolkien and the Great War: The Threshold of Middle-earth by John Garth (a rather excellent read in itself) publishes some of Tolkien’s earliest poems which can be found nowhere else in print.
-The 3rd edition of Tom Shippey’s The Road to Middle-earth (2005) reprints some of the 13 poems Tolkien initially wrote for inclusion in http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Songs_for_the_Philologists
(I'm not certain, but I think some of the other poems may have been reprinted elsewhere as well)
Tolkien was a prolific poet, some of the poems listed below have not been reprinted in many years or have only seen print in specialised journals or fanzines:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Index:Poems_by_J.R.R._Tolkien
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Trumpets_of_Faerie
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Narqelion
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Mythopoeia
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Clerkes_Compleinte
Again, that isn't necessarily a complete list. The 2016 edition of The Lay of Aotrou and Itroun also published for the first time (or so I believe, I haven't read the book yet so can't be sure, but I have read the poem itself) several previously unknown related poems by Tolkien The Corrigan
The lists above are by no means exhaustive, ‘new’ writings by Tolkien continue to be published/discovered even now, and understandably much of Tolkien’s more personal and private papers remain sealed to researchers-such as his diaries, many letters and most of the manuscripts relating to his invented languages.
The vast amount of writing relating to Tolkien's academic career remains largely unpublished, though various extracts from essays, lecture notes etc have been quoted over the years in various books.
In recent years 'extended editions' of some of Tolkien's essays have been released, incoporating previously unpublished notes, drafts and commentary by Tolkien into standalone books:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Beowulf_and_the_Critics
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien_On_Fairy-stories
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/A_Secret_Vice_(book)
Though The Old English Exodus has not been reprinted:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Old_English_Exodus
The recent book by John M. Bowers Tolkien's Lost Chaucer, explores the development of Tolkien’s unfinished ‘Clarendon Chaucer’, I haven’t actually read this book myself but as I understand Tolkien’s manuscript on Chaucer itself remains largely unpublished:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien%27s_Lost_Chaucer
Despite the publication in 2014 of Tolkien’s prose translation of Beowulf (*Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary *) his alliterative translation of Beowulf remains largely unpublished (though extracts have been printed in several books).
Several years ago a collabaration between Tolkien and CS Lewis came to light:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Language_and_Human_Nature
-As intriguing as this project sounds, it appears that Tolkien himself had little to no direct involvement with the discovered manuscript:
http://lingwe.blogspot.com/2009/07/lewistolkien-collaboration-that-might.html
The academic journal Tolkien Studies publsihed annually, has re-printed various obscure (or previously unpublished writings) by Tolkien:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien_Studies
The 12 Volume The History Of Middle Earth series published much, but not all of the writing relating to the textual history/development of The Silmarillion and The Lord Of The Rings. (As I recall much of the development of the The Council Of Elrond chapter is skipped over, as it is for The Tale Of Aragorn and Arwen.)
IIRC the HOME also doesn't cover the development of the narrative work ‘Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age’ which was published in its final form in The Silmarillion. Even in a series as large as the HOME, omissions for lack of space were needed, in his editorial commentary Christoher Tolkien often references or summarises some of the missing texts/alternate drafts which weren’t able to be included, perhaps some of these texts will be published in the forthcoming book The Nature Of Middle Earth?
(I haven't read through the H.O.M.E in several years, so no doubt there a few other relevant points I've not mentioned)
Unfinished Tales is similarly selective in the material it publishes (though some of the missing texe referenced by Christopher Tolkien were later published in the H.O.M.E or elsewhere)
The extant manuscripts for The Silmarillion and The Lord Of The Rings (not to mention The Hobbit), run to many thousands of pages each, so it is understandable that not every variant draft or related lore fragment could be published within the constraints of The H.O.M.E (though some of us no doubt feel differently!)
Despite the publication of the three stand alone volumes The Children Of Hurin, Beren and Luthien, and The Fall Of Gondolin in recent years, not all the extant material relating to these stories has been published. In the one of the links above it is noted ''The Children of Hurin. Another version of The Children of Hurin, with the same title, unpublished, is in rhyming couplets’’ similarly there is another version of the Beren and Luthien narrative that remains unpublished (a lengthy but unfinished prose text based on The Lay of Leithian), as does
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Lay_of_the_Fall_of_Gondolin
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Complaint_of_M%C3%AEm_the_Dwarf
Tolkien scholars Wayne G Hammond and Christina Scull have published or edited numerous books about Tolkien and his writing. This includes three art books (J. R. R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator, The Art Of The Hobbit, and The Art Of The Lord Of The Rings) which publish much (but far from all) of Tolkien’s artwork, calligraphy, maps and illustrations, and also quote from unpublished manuscripts.
The following PDF compiled by the two is a very useful list of all of Tolkien's published art (up to July 2018):
https://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/Tolkien_art_list_revised_July_2018.pdf
Hammond and Scull also authored the following two books:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_A_Reader%27s_Companion
-The Readers Companion includes a newly transcribed version of Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings, quotes from formerly unpublished parts of "The Hunt for the Ring" (amongst other texts) and "Index questions", includes extracts from several previously unpublished letters and notes by Tolkien (including infomation on the length/frequency of an Ent's stride...). Selected parts of Tolkien’s ‘'synoptic time scheme’' are also quoted in the book, though this text itself remains largely unpublished.
(During the writing of The Lord of the Rings (more so in the later stages), Tolkien found that in order to keep all of the characters' movements synchronized with travel distances, the correct day of the week etc he had to come up with a 'synoptic' time-scheme (or to put it more simply a ‘Chronology Of The Lord Of the Rings’). As I understand it this document takes the form of a series of multiple columns, it relates in brief what each character was doing that particular day, and includes some unpublished detail on what the various characters were doing on particular days ‘offscreen’ (well, off-page) (IIRC extracts from this time scheme confirm it was Bill Ferny and co who ransacked the Hobbits rooms in Bree, rather than the Ringwraiths as often supposed. We also learn that the orc Shagrat delivered Frodo's mithril shirt to and was personally executed by Sauron after informing him of the intruders into Mordor-that's how the 'Mouth Of Sauron' obtained Frodo's mithril shirt and was able to taunt Aragorn and co with it at the Black Gate)
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_J.R.R._Tolkien_Companion_and_Guide
-The Companion And Guide publishes for the first time a huge variety of unpublished writings (including extracts from Tolkien's diaries, unpublished lecture notes and letters, private correspodence with his publishers and the following essays):
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Lecture_on_Dragons
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Goths
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/On_the_translation_of_poetry
In this book Hammond and Scull note that as of 2006 (a much revised and expanded edition of the Companion And Guide was released in 2017) more than 1,500 Letters by J.R.R Tolkien were known to exist with more continuing to come to light each year, some of the unpublished letters are listed here:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letters_not_published_in_%22The_Letters_of_J.R.R._Tolkien%22
The book Letters Of J.R.R Tolkien (first published in 1981), quotes from 354 letters or unsent drafts (only some of which are printed in full), in the decades since the book was first published many other letters have been published or quoted in part, in journals, fanzines and other books (including the aforementioned Companion And Guide) etc.
Hammond and Scull have indicated on several occasions they would be interested in editing an expanded 2nd edition of The Letters Of JRR Tolkien if such an oppurtunity arose. As a comparison a quick google shows that the Collected Letters Of CS Lewis runs to three(?) volumes and over 4,000 pages in length!
Hammond and Scull also edited stand alone editions of Tolkien's shorter fiction Roverandom (1998, 2nd edition 2013), Farmer Giles Of Ham (1999, 2nd edition 2014) and The Adventures Of Tom Bombadil (2014), these all include previously unpublished material (e.g extracts from earlier drafts, letters, unpublished notes etc).
In 2005 Verlyn Flieger edited an 'extended edition' of Smith Of Wooton Major (a revised 2nd editon followed in 2015):
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Smith_of_Wootton_Major

In addition to editorial Notes and Commentary, the edition includes much material that was hitherto unpublished, including facsimiles of manuscripts and typescripts of previous versions, a Time Scheme, new essays (especially one dealing with the background of the story and the nature of Faerie) and notes by J.R.R. Tolkien, and a list of characters.[2]
On 26 February 2015, the extended edition was reissued by HarperCollins as a pocket hardback, with an additional gallery displaying the illustrations redrawn by Pauline Baynes for appearance in the 1980 deluxe edition of Poems and Stories.[3]

Flieger's own books on Tolkien are highly acclaimed (though I haven't read any of them myself), and I believe also quote from unpublished writing:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Verlyn_Flieger
The BBC Written Archives Centre (Reading, England), Bodleian Library (Oxford, England), Leeds University (Leeds, England), Marquette University (Milwaukee, United States) and Marion E. Wade Center (Wheaton College, Illinois, United States), amongst other locations, maintain sizeable collections of Tolkien's manuscripts, correspondence etc, some of which is unpublished, or remains sealed to researchers.
The following books also print previously unpublished material including letters, poems and more artwork (though I've not read any of these books myself...I'm noticing a pattern here...so many books to read but so little spare time/budget...)
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien:_Life_and_Legend
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien:_Maker_of_Middle-earth
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Tolkien_Family_Album
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tolkien_at_Exeter_College
The forthcoming book The Nature Of Middle-earth (due for release in June 2021) will publish for the first time various previously unseen writings, according to its amazon.uk listing:

First ever publication of J.R.R. Tolkien’s final writings on Middle-earth, covering a wide range of subjects and perfect for those who have read and enjoyed The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle-earth, and want to learn more about Tolkien’s magnificent world.
It is well known that J.R.R. Tolkien published The Hobbit in 1937 and The Lord of the Rings in 1954–5. What may be less known is that he continued to write about Middle-earth in the decades that followed, right up until the years before his death in 1973.
For him, Middle-earth was part of an entire world to be explored, and the writings in The Nature of Middle-earth reveal the journeys that he took as he sought to better understand his unique creation. From sweeping themes as profound as Elvish immortality and reincarnation, and the Powers of the Valar, to the more earth-bound subjects of the lands and beasts of Númenor, the geography of the Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor, and even who had beards!

The editor of the book Carl F. Hostetter has for many years acted as head of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship (a organization devoted to the scholarly study of Tolkien’s invented languages), and has frequently edited issues of
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Vinyar_Tengwar
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Parma_Eldalamberon
These journals are largely focussed on publishing prevously unseen manuscripts and texts relating to Tolkien’s invented languages, a still ongoing process (This particular area of Tolkien's writing is not something i have much knowledge about, so I couldn't say how extensive the relevant manuscript material is, nor how far along they are in publishing this material), see this old thread for infomation on one of the more notable unpublished texts:
https://www.reddit.com/tolkienfans/comments/28izi3/an_update_on_taliska_by_the_editor_vinyar_tengwa
Although most of the writings published in these journals are linguistic and rather fragmentary in nature, more lengthy texts published include:
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Rivers_and_Beacon-hills_of_Gondor
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/%C3%93sanwe-kenta
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/La_Feuille_de_la_Compagnie_3

La Feuille de la Compagnie, vol.3, J.R.R. Tolkien, l'effigie des Elfes is an issue of the French journal La Feuille de la Compagnie. It includes the full versions of J.R.R. Tolkien's manuscripts "Converse of Manwë and Eru" (1959), "Reincarnation of Elves" (1959-1966), and "Some Notes on 'Rebirth', Reincarnation by Restoration, among Elves" (1972). These manuscripts were originally published in part or summarised in Morgoth's Ring and The Peoples of Middle-earth.

See these links for further detail on this:
https://erunyauve.tumblr.com/post/112851590712/fragments-on-elvish-reincarnation
https://mythoi.tolkienindex.net/2014/12/11/tolkiens-fragments-on-elvish-reincarnation-14/
According to wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_constructed_by_J._R._R._Tolkien

With the publication of much linguistic material during the 1990s, especially in the History of Middle-earth series, and the Vinyar Tengwar and Parma Eldalamberon material published at an increasing rate during the early 2000s from the stock of linguistic material in the possession of the appointed team of editors (some 3000 pages according to them),[23][24] the subject of Tolkien's constructed languages has become much more accessible.

Perhaps its possible some of this content will be republished in The Nature Of Middle-earth?
Going back to my early comments on the HOME, this old, but interesting thread from the ‘Hall Of Fire’ forum is particularly relevant:
http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2250&sid=9068906c31575be87382b7338147e0e3

In my Foreword to The Peoples of Middle-earth, pp.ix-x, I referred to the forerunner of the History as 'an entirely "private" study, without thought or purpose of publication: an exhaustive investigation and analysis of all the materials concerned with what came to be called the Elder Days, from the earliest beginnings, omitting no detail of name-form or textual variation.' This work, which I called The History of the Silmarillion, and which I began after the publication of my 'constructed' text, runs to more than 2600 very closely typed pages, and it does not even touch on the Second and Third Ages. When the possibility arose of publishing at least part of this work, in some form, it was obvious that it would have to be heavily reduced and curtailed, and the part of The History of Middle-earth dealing with the Elder Days is indeed a new presentation of The History of the Silmarillion, and a severe contraction of it, especially in respect of the sheer quantity of variant manuscript material reproduced in full.

(Aelfwine is the online name of Carl Hostetter)
This answer on Quora is interesting:
https://www.quora.com/After-Lord-of-the-Rings-was-there-any-mention-of-the-entwives/answePip-Willis
This recent thread on the tolkienforum:
https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/orc-women.28932/page-2

...There are also some unpublished materials that Tolkien wrote on this subject that will not see the light of day for several decades, as both JRRT and CJRT did not want them exposed (Tolkien felt ashamed that he had even contemplated their contents). I have seen one of these in 1982, just prior to Christopher Tolkien taking possession of the entirety of the Bodleian Library’s collection of JRRT’s writings for the First/Second Ages. It is very likely that collectively these could answer more definitively the issue of “What are Orcs?” despite none of these essays themselves reaching a firm conclusion...

Lead me to do some digging on the subject of orc women and I came across this old forum thread:
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=199809

...Also, it may be likely that the Dwarves didn't do a lot of fighting, and probably only provided engineering services (making battlefield works and working as sappers or engineers to bring down fieldworks throw up by the good guys)… I'll see if I can find the source for why I got that idea… It's in some of the photocopies I got to make of Tolkien's stuff at Marquette University (The source was just a scribbling of some numbers of troops at the Battle of the Last Alliance, and the number of Dwarves was really small compared to the other troops)
...Unfortunately, most of what I have has already shown up in CJRT's The History of Middle Earth. I plan to make another trip when I can get some more brownie points to spend to get me access to the library again, this time, trying to sort out what is in some of the harder to read materials that are probably about Orcs, and Morgoth's early attempts to kidnap elves to turn to his cause… I got the feeling that Morgoth wanted the elves to join him voluntarily, but didn't understand (or, more likely, was just beyond his understanding) why the elves refused to have anything to do with him (I'd also like to see if there is anything about Sauron in the earlier materials and when he first appears in the earlier works, as Sauron WAS able to corrupt some elves later -albeit not how Morgoth had hoped. The elves would have never helped or fought for Sauron if they had a clue as to his real identity, but it does pose a good question, of would the elves of Eregion have fought for Sauron while he still had his more attractive guise if Sauron had concocted some scheme to get those elves to oppose Gondor, Lorien, or Imladris)…
Anyway… I do still have a lot about Orcs that I was able to dig up, including how they were created after Morgoth's original corruption of the elves. It was a MESSY and REALLY GROSS process.
Well, there is one version of Orc creation that never changed. Creation is probably the wrong word for it, as it is really how Orcs were mass produced after the creation of the first Orcs via the corruption of the Elves stolen from Cuiviénen by the infamous Black Rider (the first such figure, who was an opposition to Oromé).
Tolkien was not happy with the Orc creation stories because they all took him to places that he felt that no sane person should ever consider, and he remarked to himself once "How can I ever have allowed myself to consider this." on the side of a page that was remarking on how Orc Farming might be accomplished.
He did eventually rule out the breeding of Orcs by natural means (that means no female Orcs, ever), and stated that no Elve woman would allow herself to conceive such a monstrosity, and that humans who had been successfully impregnated by Orcs would usually die of the pregnancy (there is a crossed out bit that looks to read "Except in cases where the woman…"). I speculate that he might have suggested that very corrupted and evil human women might survive a pregnancy from an Orc fertilization, but the really awful part is that any such offspring would only be chopped up to be used as seed or fertilizer for other Orcs being grown in the pits of filth where they are farmed (with various other ingredients added during the gestation in their womb of filth in order to specialize the crop). This is where the addition of human remains would be important to the creation of your "Man-Orc" or Uruk-Hai, but even this would take many generations. Maybe 20 years for five to ten generations, depending upon the quality of Orc wanted, the longer the time, the better the quality of Orc. So, Uruks would probably be four to five years per generation. That is still a very short time to breed Orcs, as a HUGE Army could be raised in relatively short times.
Also, many of the Orcs in a batch might not make it, or they might be cannibalized as food by those "Hatching" early.
So, yes, Tolkien thought that it was best left to the Imagination. PJ in the movies did use the same passages that I read to show the "birthing pits" beneath Isengard when he was raising the Uruk-Hai.
On that subject… What people probably don't realize is that Saruman had probably been at his Orc breeding for quite a few generations before he even openly considered opposing the rest of the council… Probably since the assault on Dol Goldur, in fact. (given that his first batch was probably only 10 to 50 Orcs, with 1/5 of those being Uruk-Hai, and he would have needed to use almost all of the Uruk-Hai as seed crop (meaning that they would be killed in the process), it would take him about 10 generations to raise his army of 10,000 Uruk-Hai, or around 40 to 80 years. So, that could be another reason he was not so keen to attack Dol Goldur, as he knew that he would immediately have Sauron back in Mordor, breeding his own competitive hoard on a much larger breeding farm… Again, just speculation, but it does match with the numbers…

On the subject of Orc Women see the infamous 'Munby Letter':
https://middle-earth.xenite.org/what-is-the-munby-lette
And no doubt there is even more not listed anywhere...
Thoughts?
TLDR: There's quite a lot still unpublished, and much of it sounds very interesting indeed...
Thoughts?
Any of the above you'd be particularly interested in seeing published?
Is there anything I've missed out?
(I wrote this in googledocs, and don't post on reddit that often anymore, so apologies for any spelling mistakes/weird formatting)
*Edit, thank you very much for the silver kind anonymous redditor! I didn't research or write this post expecting any reward or for it to gain so much traction. I was mostly just trying to sate my curiosity on this topic...which I appear to have failed out, I'm now only more keen for answers on some of this unpublished material...